Al Bundy;1208343 wrote:You know that b, d, f, h, j, and l can't be the greatest value from the given information.

That's not what we are trying to figure out. I don't care what the greatest value is. I care what the top 4 values are. B, D, F, H, J, and L may not be the greatest value. But just because B<A, it does not mean that B cannot be > C, E, G, I, and K.

sherm03;1208365 wrote:That's not what we are trying to figure out. I don't care what the greatest value is. I care what the top 4 values are. B, D, F, H, J, and L may not be the greatest value. But just because B<A, it does not mean that B cannot be > C, E, G, I, and K.

I thought we were trying to find a national champion, not the #4 team in the country. If you are aiming to be #4, you are following right into what sleeper accused ND fans of aiming for.

Al Bundy;1208392 wrote:I thought we were trying to find a national champion, not the #4 team in the country. If you are aiming to be #4, you are following right into what sleeper accused ND fans of aiming for.

You're putting words into my mouth. The point of the playoff is to determine who the champion is. We are not trying to find a national champion. This discussion started because we are trying to find the best way to place teams into the playoff that would yield the champion. Nobody is "aiming to be #4."

While we are not trying to find the #4 team in the country, we are debating who those top 4 teams should be. I am of the point of view that those should be the best four teams. You are of the opinion that you can be ranked #25, but since you won your conference, you deserve a spot over a team who finished #2, but lost in their championship game.

Maybe that's why we keep going back and forth...because you are having trouble understanding the point of the discussion.

sherm03;1208429 wrote:You're putting words into my mouth. The point of the playoff is to determine who the champion is. We are not trying to find a national champion. This discussion started because we are trying to find the best way to place teams into the playoff that would yield the champion. Nobody is "aiming to be #4."

While we are not trying to find the #4 team in the country, we are debating who those top 4 teams should be. I am of the point of view that those should be the best four teams. You are of the opinion that you can be ranked #25, but since you won your conference, you deserve a spot over a team who finished #2, but lost in their championship game.

Maybe that's why we keep going back and forth...because you are having trouble understanding the point of the discussion.

I am putting more stock into what has happened on the field, while you are putting more stock into mythical rankings. You are more concerned with finding #2, #3, and #4, while I only care about the national champion. I apologize if the math inequalities didn't make sense to you, but it is a logical chain for showing possible orders. I agree that it doesn't show #2, #3, and #4, but I don't care about those spots. It does exclude six of the values from #1.

Al Bundy;1208577 wrote:I am putting more stock into what has happened on the field, while you are putting more stock into mythical rankings. You are more concerned with finding #2, #3, and #4, while I only care about the national champion. I apologize if the math inequalities didn't make sense to you, but it is a logical chain for showing possible orders. I agree that it doesn't show #2, #3, and #4, but I don't care about those spots. It does exclude six of the values from #1.

The math made perfect sense to me. But you are trying to say that because 6 of them cannot be #1, they don't deserve the chance to play to win the #1 ranking. If that's your thinking...then why even have a game. At the end of the year, the best team is the champion. No need to play a game.

You may not care about those spots...but when you are figuring out teams to go into a playoff, those spots matter.

And while I don't think those rankings get the #1 team right all of the team...I think it's safe to assume that the #1 team is somewhere in that top 4. So if you take those top 4, the #1 team would emerge as the champion. You are putting more stock into a team's performance against a small percentage of the total group. I put more stock in how that team stacks up against the total group.

it would be better that the National Champ be a Champion of Champions, not a conference loser.

sherm03;1208138 wrote:But there were enough playoff spots for all of the division winners to make it. There was never a time in the NFL when there were not enough playoff spots where each division could not be represented. It's apples to oranges. A closer comparison would be if the NFL was set up exactly how it is now...but there were only 2 NFC teams and 2 AFC teams to make the playoffs. That would mean that 2 division champs would be left out. Then...and only then...would this be analogous.

Fine, which would mean there's no room at all for wildcards.

queencitybuckeye;1208677 wrote:Fine, which would mean there's no room at all for wildcards.

In your opinion. But the fact is, we will never know what the NFL would do if there were only four playoff spots up for grabs. Maybe they would combine divisions to keep the division champion as the qualifier. Maybe they would do away with all divisions and just take the top two in the AFC and the top two in the NFC. And maybe the former is where we are heading. Maybe the BCS schools have worked out a plan where two of the six conferences will be assimilated into the other four conferences and the conference champs will automatically get the playoff spot.

But that's not what we have right now. We have six major conferences, and a group of teams outside of those six conferences that regularly are considered some of the best teams in the country. We also have a disparity where four of those conferences are generally considered much stronger than the other two on a consistent basis.

Go ahead and tell me which teams should make the playoffs in the scenario I posted qcb. I intentionally didn't post those subjective rankings for each conference champ for you...so you can be completely objective. After all, you said that you would take objective over subjective every time.

sherm03;1208709 wrote:In your opinion. But the fact is, we will never know what the NFL would do if there were only four playoff spots up for grabs. Maybe they would combine divisions to keep the division champion as the qualifier. Maybe they would do away with all divisions and just take the top two in the AFC and the top two in the NFC. And maybe the former is where we are heading. Maybe the BCS schools have worked out a plan where two of the six conferences will be assimilated into the other four conferences and the conference champs will automatically get the playoff spot.

But that's not what we have right now. We have six major conferences, and a group of teams outside of those six conferences that regularly are considered some of the best teams in the country. We also have a disparity where four of those conferences are generally considered much stronger than the other two on a consistent basis.

Go ahead and tell me which teams should make the playoffs in the scenario I posted qcb. I intentionally didn't post those subjective rankings for each conference champ for you...so you can be completely objective. After all, you said that you would take objective over subjective every time.

I can't put six teams into four slots without some subjectivity, but I can eliminate everyone except those six with absolute objectivity.

queencitybuckeye;1208780 wrote:I can't put six teams into four slots without some subjectivity, but I can eliminate everyone except those six with absolute objectivity.

Exactly. Otherwise, how do we know a 6-6 MAC team isn't the best team in the country? It's broken logic at best and fraud at worst.

And to be fair, you eliminate all but 11 by making it a conference championship requirement.

The fact that you have to win your conference shouldn't have anything to do with it. You can argue all you want, but there is subjective decisions in every college sports. There will have to be decisions made subjectively to get a true playoff. If you want to guarantee spots for the conference champs, then go to 8 so the best teams that didn't win a BCS conference, get a shot. Don't give me that because a shitty Pitt team won a shitty Big East, they have to be better than the Big 12 or SEC runner-up. That is absurd. It doesn't take an expert to determine the best teams. Let's look back and see what this "system" would have given us had it been in place in the past.....(This assumes you take the 4 highest ranked conference champs)

1998: #1 Tennessee, #2 Florida State, #5 UCLA, and #6 Texas A&M is your field. #4 Ohio State (Choked away a game against MSU) and #3 Kansas State (Lost Big 12 title game in OT) are left out when they were great all year. Instead you get UCLA coming off a loss to a 9-3 Miami team and Texas A&M who had lost 2 games that year and was beaten by OSU in the Sugar Bowl.

2002: #1 Miami, #2 Ohio State, #3 Georgia, #6 Washington State is the field....This may be the best case....#4 USC and #5 Iowa are left out because of conference tie breakers.

2004: #1 USC, #2 Oklahoma, #3 Auburn, # ???? is the field.....What do you do here? #6 Utah was unbeaten. #8 Virginia Tech was the ACC champs at 10-2 and #13 Michigan won the Big 10 at 9-2.

2005: #1 USC, #2 Texas, #3 Penn State, and I guess #7 Georgia would be your field....That leaves out #4 Ohio State (losses to Texas and Penn State) and #6 Notre Dame.

2006: #1 Ohio State, #2 Florida, #5 USC, and either #6 Louisville (11-1 Big East champ) or #8 Boise State (12-0)....You are then leaving out #3 Michigan (only loss at OSU) and #4 LSU (Lost at #4 Auburn 7-3 and at Florida)

2008: #1 Oklahoma, #2 Florida, #5 USC and either #6 Utah (12-0) or #8 Penn State (11-1).....This leaves out #3 Texas (Only loss at Texas Tech on basically a hail mary) and #4 Alabama (Only loss was to Florida in the SEC CG)

2009: You have #1 Bama (13-0), #2 Texas (13-0), #3 Cincinnati (12-0), #4 TCU (12-0) and #6 Boise (13-0)...Who gets the guarantee?

No matter what you do you are going to have people complaining. I just want to see the best teams playing it out. You don't always get that just using conference champions.

slcoach;1208808 wrote:Let's look back and see what this "system" would have given us had it been in place in the past.....(This assumes you take the 4 highest ranked conference champs)

Why? You are using old seasons where some conferences did not have conference championship games (aka the play in games or quarterfinals). Take the four highest rate conference champs after those games, seems simple enough.

queencitybuckeye;1208780 wrote:I can't put six teams into four slots without some subjectivity, but I can eliminate everyone except those six with absolute objectivity.

That is just crap.

Let's take 2005 as an example. (This isn't how it worked out, but it's the first case I thought of)

- Texas beat Ohio State at Ohio State.
- The Buckeyes go on to lose 2 conference games but still win the Big Ten because of tie breakers and finish #11 in the polls.
- The Big East champ and the ACC champ each lose 2 conference games and 2 OOC games. They finish #20 and #24 in the polls.
- Texas loses to Oklahoma and finishes 11-1 and ranked #4.
- Florida goes 13-0 and is #1
- USC goes 12-0 and is #2
- Oklahoma goes 13-0 and is #3

You are saying that #11 Ohio State (9-3 and Big Ten champ) is more deserving of a playoff spot than a #4 ranked 11-1 Texas team that beat them on their own field? That, to me, is just stupid.

slcoach;1208823 wrote:You are saying that #11 Ohio State (9-3 and Big Ten champ) is more deserving of a playoff spot than a #4 ranked 11-1 Texas team that beat them on their own field? That, to me, is just stupid.

Why is Georgia left out of this equation?

slcoach;1208808 wrote:The fact that you have to win your conference shouldn't have anything to do with it. You can argue all you want, but there is subjective decisions in every college sports. There will have to be decisions made subjectively to get a true playoff. If you want to guarantee spots for the conference champs, then go to 8 so the best teams that didn't win a BCS conference, get a shot. Don't give me that because a ****ty Pitt team won a ****ty Big East, they have to be better than the Big 12 or SEC runner-up. That is absurd. It doesn't take an expert to determine the best teams. Let's look back and see what this "system" would have given us had it been in place in the past.....(This assumes you take the 4 highest ranked conference champs)

1998: #1 Tennessee, #2 Florida State, #5 UCLA, and #6 Texas A&M is your field. #4 Ohio State (Choked away a game against MSU) and #3 Kansas State (Lost Big 12 title game in OT) are left out when they were great all year. Instead you get UCLA coming off a loss to a 9-3 Miami team and Texas A&M who had lost 2 games that year and was beaten by OSU in the Sugar Bowl.

2002: #1 Miami, #2 Ohio State, #3 Georgia, #6 Washington State is the field....This may be the best case....#4 USC and #5 Iowa are left out because of conference tie breakers.

2004: #1 USC, #2 Oklahoma, #3 Auburn, # ???? is the field.....What do you do here? #6 Utah was unbeaten. #8 Virginia Tech was the ACC champs at 10-2 and #13 Michigan won the Big 10 at 9-2.

2005: #1 USC, #2 Texas, #3 Penn State, and I guess #7 Georgia would be your field....That leaves out #4 Ohio State (losses to Texas and Penn State) and #6 Notre Dame.

2006: #1 Ohio State, #2 Florida, #5 USC, and either #6 Louisville (11-1 Big East champ) or #8 Boise State (12-0)....You are then leaving out #3 Michigan (only loss at OSU) and #4 LSU (Lost at #4 Auburn 7-3 and at Florida)

2008: #1 Oklahoma, #2 Florida, #5 USC and either #6 Utah (12-0) or #8 Penn State (11-1).....This leaves out #3 Texas (Only loss at Texas Tech on basically a hail mary) and #4 Alabama (Only loss was to Florida in the SEC CG)

2009: You have #1 Bama (13-0), #2 Texas (13-0), #3 Cincinnati (12-0), #4 TCU (12-0) and #6 Boise (13-0)...Who gets the guarantee?

No matter what you do you are going to have people complaining. I just want to see the best teams playing it out. You don't always get that just using conference champions.

I don't know a single OSU fan that believes the 1998 or 2005 teams should have been in the title game. Both had great talent, but they didn't take care of business. We are looking at determining the national champ, not who is #4 or #5, etc. Everyone's argument against conference champs is that we can not determine who the fourth best team in the country is. If you aren't #1 it doesn't really matter.

Sonofanump;1208820 wrote:Why? You are using old seasons where some conferences did not have conference championship games (aka the play in games or quarterfinals). Take the four highest rate conference champs after those games, seems simple enough.

Seriously?

What if there are upsets in the conference championship games? So if last year Georgia upset LSU and UCLA (my lord) upset Oregon, you would have chosen between Clemson, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Oklahoma State, Georgia, and UCLA.

Your playoff would have been:

#3 Oklahoma State
#10 Wisconsin
#15 Clemson
#16 Georgia

That sounds awesome!!!!:thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown:

Sonofanump;1208829 wrote:Why is Georgia left out of this equation?

It was a hypothetical man...

Al Bundy;1208831 wrote:I don't know a single OSU fan that believes the 1998 or 2005 teams should have been in the title game. Both had great talent, but they didn't take care of business. We are looking at determining the national champ, not who is #4 or #5, etc. Everyone's argument against conference champs is that we can not determine who the fourth best team in the country is. If you aren't #1 it doesn't really matter.

Really? Only thing that matters is #1? Do you understand how a 4 team playoff works? Might as well go back to pre-BCS poll champs. Your argument makes no sense.

Al Bundy;1208831 wrote:I don't know a single OSU fan that believes the 1998 or 2005 teams should have been in the title game. Both had great talent, but they didn't take care of business. We are looking at determining the national champ, not who is #4 or #5, etc. Everyone's argument against conference champs is that we can not determine who the fourth best team in the country is. If you aren't #1 it doesn't really matter.

So Miami should be 2002 champs. And OSU 2006 champs.

Al Bundy;1208831 wrote:I don't know a single OSU fan that believes the 1998 or 2005 teams should have been in the title game. Both had great talent, but they didn't take care of business. We are looking at determining the national champ, not who is #4 or #5, etc. Everyone's argument against conference champs is that we can not determine who the fourth best team in the country is. If you aren't #1 it doesn't really matter.

But everyone has stated they want the title decided on the field. If you aren't giving the #4 team a shot, then just go back and name them via polls. You are saying the #4 doesn't matter and that they have no shot to win on the field.

You are saying that OSU didn't take care of business on the field, but Texas A&M that lost 2 games did? Give me a break.

WebFire;1208837 wrote:Really? Only thing that matters is #1? Do you understand how a 4 team playoff works? Might as well go back to pre-BCS poll champs. Your argument makes no sense.

Thank you!

slcoach;1208832 wrote:What if...

My uncle was an aunt? Your &#8220;what if&#8221; is highly implausible.

slcoach;1208832 wrote:#3 Oklahoma State
#10 Wisconsin
#15 Clemson
#16 Georgia

Did Boise lose their conference championship game last year? Also if Georgia beats LSU, they would be ranked top ten.

Sonofanump;1208847 wrote:Did Boise lose their conference championship game last year? Also if Georgia beats LSU, they would be ranked top ten.

That's your defense? Boise lost to TCU. So....if Georgia does win we get...

#3 Oklahoma State
#7-8? Georgia
#10 Wisconsin
#15 Clemson

Damn that gets me pumped about a playoff.....:laugh::laugh::laugh: